[PAULUS libro uicensimo primo ad edictum. ] §50.16.25.prRecte dicimus eum fundum totum nostrum esse, etiam cum usus fructus alienus est, quia usus fructus non dominii pars, sed seruitutis sit, ut uia et iter: nec falso dici totum meum esse, cuius non potest ulla pars dici alterius esse.
[PAULUS, in the twenty-first book on the Edict.] We rightly say that a plot of land is entirely ours, even when the usufruct belongs to another, because the usufruct is not a part of ownership, but of servitude, like a right of way or a footpath; nor is it falsely said that a thing is entirely mine, of which no part can be said to belong to another.
hoc et Iulianus, et est uerius.
This is also the view of Julian, and it is more correct.
§50.16.25.1Quintus Mucius ait partis appellatione rem pro indiuiso significari: nam quod pro diuiso nostrum sit, id non partem, sed totum esse.
Quintus Mucius says that by the designation of "part" an undivided thing is meant; for that which is ours in a divided state is not a part, but a whole.
Seruius non ineleganter partis appellatione utrumque significari.
Servius not inelegantly states that both are meant by the designation of "part".